moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 241 
Likes: 251
|
Post by moist on Nov 4, 2016 8:32:55 GMT
We've tried to delineate the default, including a timeline of events, to shed a bit more light on what's happened. Also tried to engage SS having spoken with them when the default initially occurred, but to no avail as of yet...have a read if you're interested - www.orcamoney.com/blog/saving-stream-default-2016-updateCheers dont forget SS appear to own 10% of the asset already....
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan on Nov 4, 2016 9:48:25 GMT
We've tried to delineate the default, including a timeline of events, to shed a bit more light on what's happened. Also tried to engage SS having spoken with them when the default initially occurred, but to no avail as of yet...have a read if you're interested - www.orcamoney.com/blog/saving-stream-default-2016-updateCheers dont forget SS appear to own 10% of the asset already.... I agree with you, totally, and that point, alongwith other questions around planning, valuation, floating charges could be explored further, but at this point we're simply trying to give the facts and not make any speculative claims until we know more.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 4, 2016 13:59:21 GMT
So far as I'm aware there was no period of consultation about PBL020 or transfer of PBL020 to the new borrower. You've quoted from Saving Stream's legal position which affirmed that the loans are still to Lendy Ltd: "The loan from lender to Lendy Ltd remains in place until the borrower repays the loan". What should be expected is that if Lendy does not fully repay its loan and all interest due it'll be taken to the FOS then if necessary the courts to compel payment.
Your timeline doesn't appear to mention Saving Stream's corporate guarantee. That's significant also, as is subsequently disclaiming the guarantee as against the terms and conditions at the time the guarantee was given. Whether Saving Stream ever intended to honour the guarantee or intended from the start to disclaim it if it ever mattered is a very interesting question here.
Those two items are very significant because at the time one of the features given for Saving Stream was that it didn't matter which loan you were in because saving Stream was the borrower and you'd get repaid by Saving Stream anyway. Anything that tries to link a lender's chance of being repaid to whether Saving Stream is repaid by a particular borrower they lent to would conflict with this assertion, including the one quoted in the legal position.
The valuation basis is of interest and your earlier blog included this "the 'Current Open market valuation' of <censored property name> trading as <censored business name> at the above address to include the freehold land circa 5.5 acres (2.23 hectares) with all the applicable planning consents attached". Since that is a "current value" a lender could be expected to read that as meaning with the planning consents already in place when development consent was not given.
Your timeline doesn't appear to include mention of Lendy being an apparently undisclosed part owner of the ultimate borrower, when that apparent fact was only later registered at Companies House long after the loan was made and came to broader light when I mentioned it here. As I understand it the ultimate borrower was described as a wealthy individual. That would have placed all of their personal assets at risk. As I understand it the loan Lendy made actually turned out to be made to a limited liability company in which Lendy had taken a 10% ownership interest, removing that individual's assets from being at risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2016 18:29:48 GMT
"Land with full planning for redevelopment" - no it wasn't, see below.
"February 2015: Borrower....awaiting planning permission for their development plans" - no they weren't. The application to demolish and redevelop the retail site (no mention of log cabins) was submitted incomplete in October 2015, and not validated as complete until December 2015.
"March 2016: Planning for log cabins.... not approved by planning committee." - that's because the planning application was NOT for log cabins, but to redevelop the retail site (something which was reported by SS as being already in place when the loan was made).
And (not included in the Orca timeline but very relevant) "Our borrower has had numerous in-depth discussions with local planners who have not raised any objections and indicate a very high probability certain plans will be approved." - although I can't disprove this, the botched planning application strongly suggests that it is just as inaccurate as the other assertions above.
I would very much like to know what checks SS made before representing these statements to investors.
Kind regards, and apologies if some of the points appear pedantic, 49.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Nov 11, 2016 14:25:40 GMT
savingstream An update, please I note that the Garden Centre website has gone AWOL, and the latest Facebook post (posted on 08/11/16) notes "Closed as of today"Has the Garden Centre ceased trading?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Nov 11, 2016 14:47:35 GMT
Hmmmm On the seller's website... "An offer has been accepted on ***** Ridge Garden Centre & Country Store" So... this is getting close to being resolved... maybe, possibly... (credit to Please turn me over for finding the above news  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 16:04:11 GMT
Yes, the garden centre is closed, except for the cafe and the mower shop, both of whom must be cursing the day that this whole sorry saga began. 49.
|
|
elsee
Member of DD Central
Retired:D
Posts: 201 
Likes: 117
|
Post by elsee on Nov 19, 2016 12:30:08 GMT
I don't remember this, probably didn't read past the cashback line. I wonder if anyone asked for all their interest on drawdown, the way I read it you could request that. (my bold)
Early i.e. pre-drawdown SS investors will receive 0.5% cashback, in addition to 1% a
month.
• Interest will be paid into your account on a monthly basis for you to reinvest or
withdraw. Alternatively, full term interest will be offered for reinvestment or withdrawal
on drawdown.
• Interest will accrue immediately upon your commitment to this loan
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 19, 2016 14:20:40 GMT
I don't remember this, probably didn't read past the cashback line. I wonder if anyone asked for all their interest on drawdown, the way I read it you could request that. (my bold) Early i.e. pre-drawdown SS investors will receive 0.5% cashback, in addition to 1% a month. • Interest will be paid into your account on a monthly basis for you to reinvest or withdraw. Alternatively, full term interest will be offered for reinvestment or withdrawal on drawdown.• Interest will accrue immediately upon your commitment to this loan where are you quoting this info from?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 19, 2016 16:22:52 GMT
Document: Bridging loan particulars - Page 2 I would link the document, but... This is very unusual. I have not seen anything like it on any other SS loan. Do we know if anyone actually received interest on drawdown?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 19, 2016 16:47:08 GMT
It was an option that used to be offered by SS many moons ago when a new loan first filled. PBL020 has been hanging around so long that it's still there, I guess, but it's entirely historic. Move right along.
(IIRC, the downside to taking your interest upfront for the scheduled term was that you couldn't then sell your part on the SM)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 19, 2016 18:18:00 GMT
Further to what SteveT wrote, this option wasn't offered for all loans. And I wouldn't put it past SS to have copied the wording from one loan where it was an option to another loan where they weren't offering that option, so it might not actually have been an option for PBL020. (It wasn't obvious at the time how SS decided which loans to offer the option on and which not to. In retrospect, I wonder whether it might have depended on exactly how much interest SS had retained in advance, as we've learned by subsequent reductions in loan terms that they didn't always show the correct loan term at the time of a loan's release -- or perhaps they had a loan with a specified 12 month term that didn't actually have 12 months' worth of interest retained.) I can see in my notes from Feb.'15 that I did take upfront interest for PBL018 and PBL022, but I didn't ask for it when I invested in PBL020. I don't remember whether or not it was an option for PBL020. If it was, I might have opted for it. Or I might have decided that I wanted to retain access to the SM for some of my SS investment so I wouldn't opt for it. Not that any of this makes a bean's worth of difference. Once the initial term's worth of interest had been paid out -- either all up front or monthly -- all investors were in the same position. |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 15, 2017 15:05:37 GMT
Drum Roll Please.....
Now we wait...
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 15, 2017 16:08:37 GMT
Drum Roll Please..... Now we wait... I assume, having found the agent's news item (not yet indexed by Google), that we don't as yet know the price achieved.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 15, 2017 16:15:06 GMT
Drum Roll Please..... Now we wait... I assume, having found the agent's news item (not yet indexed by Google), that we don't as yet know the price achieved. Nothing Yet - I doubt the agents will reveal the sale price; the first news of this will be via SS (unless an ADMIN report is published before then...)
|
|
)
